Streaming is scary —

CBS joins with Amazon for in-season airing of new TV show

Under the Dome a first for the network.

Amazon has bought the rights to air a new CBS show via its Prime Instant Video service while the show also airs on TV, according to a joint press release from the two companies. Under the Dome, a sci-fi show based on the book of the same name by Stephen King, will air both on CBS and Prime Instant Video, with a four-day lag before the show is available on the latter platform.

Past seasons of some CBS shows are available as digital purchases in stores like iTunes, such as How I Met Your Mother. Under the Dome, a show about a town in New England that is unceremoniously placed under a giant dome, will be available for “unlimited streaming” by members of Amazon Prime at no additional cost, four days after episodes are broadcast. Amazon also notes that the episodes will be available on any platform for which there is an Amazon Instant Video app, such as iOS and Kindle devices, Xbox 360, Playstation 3, and Wii U.

The cost of an Amazon Prime membership ($79) is a bit steep just to get access to one unproven television show. But if the partnership proves comfortable for CBS, and possibly other television networks, the distribution method could prove a worthy competitor to ad-supported streaming from network websites or products like iTunes Season Passes to shows currently airing.

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

58 Reader Comments

I really don't understand these silly "lag" times for online airing. It seems to me that anyone who would watch it on amazon rather than over the air if they were aired simultaneously probably will lack the signal availability to watch it over the air in the first place.

I really don't understand these silly "lag" times for online airing. It seems to me that anyone who would watch it on amazon rather than over the air if they were aired simultaneously probably will lack the signal availability to watch it over the air in the first place.

I would rather watch shows on Netflix/Amazon that have to sit down and set up recording and then fast forward through ads. I barely turn the normal cable on except to look up if shows I watch have new episodes and set them to record, and only because I'd have to wait weeks or months to see them streaming. I may not be a big fan of the stone-age broadcast TV model, but certainly if they are going to beat the convenience of "pick this out of a list and watch it ad-free anytime I want" they are going to have to put that lag in to protect their model.

Er... Really? A one year subscription for $79 is steep? That includes a fairly large catalog of videos and free two day shipping on any items ordered from Amazon, so I have a hard time with the idea that it's "steep."

These artificial lags only hurt CBS and their shows' staff. They do not stop anyone who wishes to pirate a show from doing so. Likewise, those who may otherwise may have watched a show will simply find others with which to fill their time.

Even though my housemates have a Comcast cable subscription, I still do not watch anything other than Netflix streaming nor do I have any desire to do so. Amazon Prime had very little available for streaming that I wanted to see when I tried it. They need to change to a "stream it all for free" model before I bother trying them again.

Er... Really? A one year subscription for $79 is steep? That includes a fairly large catalog of videos and free two day shipping on any items ordered from Amazon, so I have a hard time with the idea that it's "steep."

Why did you cut off the part of the sentence that explains how it would be steep? You know, if you're only buying Prime to watch the show? Yes, it certainly does have other uses which, depending on how often you use it, may make Prime worth it. But, as the sentence actually reads, if you're buying it JUST to get access to the show, the price is rather crazy.

Er... Really? A one year subscription for $79 is steep? That includes a fairly large catalog of videos and free two day shipping on any items ordered from Amazon, so I have a hard time with the idea that it's "steep."

For myself, "free" two day shipping is pointless. I live in Seattle and most things from Amazon already get here that fast. In addition, not everyone orders enough stuff online to make it worth it.

I will say that a Netflix streaming account isn't much cheaper, if at all. Their catalog, however, is much more straightforward. If I pay for a service and still see "you have to pay for this show" then forget it.

This so stupid, why the delay? Because you know, torrents etc. will have no delay at all and be available the same night the shows air on TV.

But for me it doesn't matter, since I don't live in the US anyway, so "this content is not available in your country" anyway. So even if I wanted to watch this I would only have one option (unless that is, I am prepared to waith months for somebody to show it locally on TV or until the DVD is published).

CBS is being internet-shy because they're afraid that moving to internet content will destroy their traditional television viewership ad revenue market. However, they need to realize that the internet viewership that is moving away from television will do so with or without them, leaving them holding an empty bag when the traditional television model dries up from its usual cash cow to a lesser peripheral demographic.

CBS does not need to abandon television and leap headfirst into internet, because it would be equally foolish as refusing to move forward into this new field, but they will need to take steps ahead or be left behind with other aging technologies that see declining market shares. iTunes downloads will only go so far into that, they need to take bolder steps.

Er... Really? A one year subscription for $79 is steep? That includes a fairly large catalog of videos and free two day shipping on any items ordered from Amazon, so I have a hard time with the idea that it's "steep."

If they'd throw in 2 day shipping for Newegg and a few other stores, then it would be worthwhile. Amazon may be a great store, but they aren't the only one. Yet.

The artificial wait is quite irritating. Especially when you want to discuss the show with friends. Half the group won't have seen it and are late on any discussions.

Originally it wasn't too bad on Hulu with the next day viewing. But then more and more shows started getting moved to the 8 day delay. The 4 day on Amazon isn't as bad, but is still very annoying.

But some companies are even worse. SyFy (what a stupid rename to the chanel) was apparently trying to kill their viewership on Hulu. Stargate Universe was already likely to be not renewed for a 3rd season. They started putting episodes on a 30 day delay on Hulu. What the heck were they thinking? I bet hardly anyone watched it on Hulu as a result.

With Netflix starting to carry shows (House of Cards is great) and Amazon jumping into the original programming pool too (plus future HBO/Showtime switch to offering streaming?).. CBS and the other networks need to innovate fast - Hulu Plus has potential. I would consider paying a monthly fee in order to stream current shows at the same time they air as cable. Though to be honest, their offerings have been getting less compelling by the year. Even AMC (breaking bad, walking dead, mad men) and FX (justified, louie, american horror story) have even been eating their lunch. They may have already missed the boat..

I would like to say that CBS is not that internet shy with their current shows. I do not have cable and cannot stand watching ads on television so I watch things like How I Met Your Mother every week on CBS's website a day after its original airing. That seems to be pretty inline with most other networks unless I am missing something? How I Met Your Mother was also available on Netflix the last time I had Netflix (everything but the newest season if I recall correctly, same as any other network).

They are by far better than FOX who only puts up new episodes eight days after it originally airs, making it impossible to catch up if you've missed one episode (which I find incredibly odd, since you are guaranteeing that person will never watch the show live again for the rest of the season, thus cutting into your viewership and thus ad revenue).

Not to say I do not think they could be doing a better job (say leaving all previous episodes online to watch and not just the past couple), but they are no worse than any other network.

With Netflix starting to carry shows (House of Cards is great) and Amazon jumping into the original programming pool too (plus future HBO/Showtime switch to offering streaming?).. CBS and the other networks need to innovate fast - Hulu Plus has potential. I would consider paying a monthly fee in order to stream current shows at the same time they air as cable. Though to be honest, their offerings have been getting less compelling by the year. Even AMC (breaking bad, walking dead, mad men) and FX (justified, louie, american horror story) have even been eating their lunch. They may have already missed the boat..

Yeah, it's pretty amazing how the little guys are eating the big network's lunch. FX is owned by Fox but AMC , Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and Showtime have the potential to send the big networks into bankruptcy if they keep having shows peopel actually want to watch and the networks don't. NBC already kind of has with its sale to Comcast.

I gave up cable a long time ago (2 + years according to netflix) and haven't looked back. Documentaries that are TRUE documentaries and not sanitized twaddle for the express purpose of push a particular corporate ideology? check. The ability to see recent shows with no commercials and get through 3 seasons in one sitting? check. Cheap? check. Ability to take my Boxee wherever I go and have Netflix and the other apps? check.

No ads, no steep monthly bill, and Netflix comes up with great suggestions. Cable? what? No way, never again.

Once we hit the current season we have no way of viewing it outside of paying for cable and DVR it or download it. Even viewing it on the web most of these networks do not offer playback on media boxes.

If I can watch your shows on my PS3, I will. With the commercials. On demand is the way to go.

Hulu has media device apps. As does Amazon. Hope to see more current season content released on these services (and Netflix).

I gave up cable a long time ago (2 + years according to netflix) and haven't looked back. Documentaries that are TRUE documentaries and not sanitized twaddle for the express purpose of push a particular corporate ideology? check. The ability to see recent shows with no commercials and get through 3 seasons in one sitting? check. Cheap? check. Ability to take my Boxee wherever I go and have Netflix and the other apps? check.

No ads, no steep monthly bill, and Netflix comes up with great suggestions. Cable? what? No way, never again.

But you do not get current season content. Which would be grand, even if the delay is only 1-4 weeks.

TV wants to keep the the big showcase of their episodes, hit that 10 million viewers for their ads to pay enough to support them. Then get people to talk about last nights episode and keep the interest for next week's.

I really don't understand these silly "lag" times for online airing. It seems to me that anyone who would watch it on amazon rather than over the air if they were aired simultaneously probably will lack the signal availability to watch it over the air in the first place.

1) I want to watch TV on my TV2) I want to watch TV on MY schedule3) I don't have a DVR

I would like to say that CBS is not that internet shy with their current shows. I do not have cable and cannot stand watching ads on television so I watch things like How I Met Your Mother every week on CBS's website a day after its original airing. That seems to be pretty inline with most other networks unless I am missing something? How I Met Your Mother was also available on Netflix the last time I had Netflix (everything but the newest season if I recall correctly, same as any other network).

They are by far better than FOX who only puts up new episodes eight days after it originally airs, making it impossible to catch up if you've missed one episode (which I find incredibly odd, since you are guaranteeing that person will never watch the show live again for the rest of the season, thus cutting into your viewership and thus ad revenue).

Not to say I do not think they could be doing a better job (say leaving all previous episodes online to watch and not just the past couple), but they are no worse than any other network.

I've been watching Big Bang and couple of other CBS shows like this for a couple of years, so is the problem that they don't partner with other distribution websites? Their website has far fewer commercials than Hulu (and sometimes none). However, the quality of the feed is often lacking. If I can't get a good feed I'll get it off the interwebs and leave the stream running in the background so they get credit...or whatever.

BTW I also watch episodes of Daily Show and Colbert on their website mainly because they have no ads, and Hulu is really becoming irritating.

Once we hit the current season we have no way of viewing it outside of paying for cable and DVR it or download it.

If you are in the US, this is simply not true.

You may need to go through some gyrations to watch it on your television, but you can absolutely watch HIMYM on CBS's website. We've been doing so since we hit the end of what Netflix had, and we're pretty happy with it.

We watch pretty interchangeably on my 15" MacBook Pro, or on our TV through Apple TV and AirParrot.

These artificial lags only hurt CBS and their shows' staff. They do not stop anyone who wishes to pirate a show from doing so. Likewise, those who may otherwise may have watched a show will simply find others with which to fill their time.

Even though my housemates have a Comcast cable subscription, I still do not watch anything other than Netflix streaming nor do I have any desire to do so. Amazon Prime had very little available for streaming that I wanted to see when I tried it. They need to change to a "stream it all for free" model before I bother trying them again.

No, they don't hurt them. You need to understand the economics of broadcast TV. First lesson: you are not the customer, the advertisers are. You are the product, and the TV shows are bait to get you to watch. A network TV spot can generate upwards of $1 PER IN-DEMO VIEWER per show (averaged out over the individual spots). That's a lot of $$$.

The rate is determined based of the ratings, and since online viewers watching commercial free are not generating revenue outside the tiny fees they charge the streaming company (compared to the ad rates), there is essentially zero incentive, especially if your shows are already getting good ratings, to stream at all, much less at the same time as the broadcast, possibly dropping your broadcast rating in the process.

The stubborn party here are the advertisers, btw. The networks are more than happy to deliver the show any way they can, as long as they can keep up the revenue they currently get.

A cursory review of CBS.com leads me to believe to that CBS isn't all that afraid of streaming full episodes of their shows. The article is straight up wrong on this point. Looking at the ratings, I don't think CBS is lacking for viewers or popularity. In fact, they have the most popular shows on television. Last week they had 12 of the top 25 most watched shows. No other network comes close.

CBS as a whole seems pretty in tune with online distribution. Hell, they own Cnet. CBS Interactive does nothing but monetize web content, and they seem to be doing a pretty profitable job of it.

Amazon Prime is a service I recommend on a consistent basis, as the ~$6.59/mo price is unbeatable when it comes to having access to a massive digital tv/film library, in addition to the free two day shipping--whether I order a $3 pen refill, or a $1000 piece of furniture, I get free two-day delivery. And if I order one item every month or so, it pays for itself by the second month.

I am looking forward to a service (by any company, be it Amazon, Apple, or some new player) to offer a la carte programming where I can pick out shows from any network (or at least pick networks) and pay only pay for those. It looks like Amazon is doing the most to make this happen, and if they can make it work I'll be willing to pay a lot more than $79/year for such a service--as long as I am not paying that money to cable operators, I'll be a happy.

I don't understand why TV channels don't just use the same ads online that they use on TV, add each online view to their total viewers, and then just let you watch whatever you want to watch whenever you want to watch it. This could be adapted over-time to the internet, but was the previous model really so broken that it wouldn't translate easily?

Newsflash CBS: Your program is already easily available within hours (sometimes as little as minutes) in various locations, at full quality, around the internet. Placing a multi-day lag before a program becomes available legally online does nothing but push people into those other services.

Yeah... this lag time really wont make this a good option... It needs to be within hours, not days, of airing, otherwise people will simply fire up their favourite torrent service and get high quality versions of the show within an hour of it airing.

Traditional media companies just don't get it, people don't want to be on the companies time-table, they want to watch things when they want.

If that means they watch it at 2pm on a Sunday, that's when they want to watch it, if it means they want to watch it at 4am on a Wednesday after they get off work, that's when they want to watch it.

Ease of access (if it's easier to download a torrent then use the service, you've FAILED).Reasonable pricing.Prompt release to digital services

Those are how you kill piracy. People want high quality, easy to use, reasonably priced content, and are willing to pay for it... if you make it more complicated than that, they are going to pirate.

I don't understand why TV channels don't just use the same ads online that they use on TV, add each online view to their total viewers, and then just let you watch whatever you want to watch whenever you want to watch it. This could be adapted over-time to the internet, but was the previous model really so broken that it wouldn't translate easily?

That would make the most sense and I'm sure the networks would love to do it that way. There are a few reasons they don't however, the main being that advertisers don't want to pay the same rates for online viewing. Other factors are that online viewers tend to shy away from ads and it complicates the pay for the talent in the commercials so the agencies don't really like it. The last is the reason you hear different commercials if you listen to a radio station's online stream.

I don't understand why TV channels don't just use the same ads online that they use on TV, add each online view to their total viewers, and then just let you watch whatever you want to watch whenever you want to watch it. This could be adapted over-time to the internet, but was the previous model really so broken that it wouldn't translate easily?

I like this approach.

Also I feel like I'm the only one who actually don't mind having commercials -- they offer me an opportunity to get a snack or use the bathroom. And a lot of times I do watch them -- I don't mind them at all unless the commercial break is overly long (as in many news radio stations when I'm waiting to hear the traffic, sports, or weather report).

Yeah... this lag time really wont make this a good option... It needs to be within hours, not days, of airing, otherwise people will simply fire up their favourite torrent service and get high quality versions of the show within an hour of it airing.

That. These people still don't understand that they are competing with free. The fools will go the way of the dinosaurs soon enough.

Er... Really? A one year subscription for $79 is steep? That includes a fairly large catalog of videos and free two day shipping on any items ordered from Amazon, so I have a hard time with the idea that it's "steep."

If you buy much of anything on Amazon...I certainly do...Prime is a freaking steal. Free 2-day, with few if any size and weight restrictions.

You can add family to your Prime, for no $$, and then the value prop gets decent even for more occasional buyers.

'Perks' like video content, free music, etc. may or may not be important to you, but I think the free shipping is a no-brainer.

Amazon Prime is a service I recommend on a consistent basis, as the ~$6.59/mo price is unbeatable when it comes to having access to a massive digital tv/film library, in addition to the free two day shipping--whether I order a $3 pen refill, or a $1000 piece of furniture, I get free two-day delivery. And if I order one item every month or so, it pays for itself by the second month.

I am looking forward to a service (by any company, be it Amazon, Apple, or some new player) to offer a la carte programming where I can pick out shows from any network (or at least pick networks) and pay only pay for those. It looks like Amazon is doing the most to make this happen, and if they can make it work I'll be willing to pay a lot more than $79/year for such a service--as long as I am not paying that money to cable operators, I'll be a happy.

This.

There are some recent TV Series that definitely worthwhile on Prime (currently watching Prison Break) and after only one TV Series, Prime has basically payed it for self offsetting the cost of buying the TV Series DVDs.

CBS comes in fine with rabbit ears, so I use Media Center to record a show and watch it when I want to.The only times I miss that is if sports are on earlier and it offsets the start time. In that case, I just go straight to the CBS website the next day and watch it.

"The cost of an Amazon Prime membership ($79) is a bit steep just to get access to one unproven television show."

Who would buy Amazon Prime just for one show? Has the author ever reviewed a movie "That was a great movie, but it wasn't worth the $27,352 I paid for the car to get there."?

Actually movie critics have done just that. The main knock against John Carter that the critics liked to trot out was that it cost a quarter billion dollars to make. At which point I thought, "Who gives a fuck what they spent to make it? It still only costs you $8 to see it."

As for the actual show we're talking about here: this is CBS's attempt at discrediting the whole in season online video distribution ecosystem. Bring out one (no doubt crappy) TV show that probably would get cancelled no matter what and then go, "see we tried to sell our shows online and it failed!" Because, you know, why would you try that with something people actually want to watch.

Yeah... this lag time really wont make this a good option... It needs to be within hours, not days, of airing, otherwise people will simply fire up their favourite torrent service and get high quality versions of the show within an hour of it airing.

That. These people still don't understand that they are competing with free. The fools will go the way of the dinosaurs soon enough.

This philosophy can work when it comes to software. Not so much when it comes to high-production-value video content.

If CBS goes belly-up, that means that all the shows CBS produces for its own networks have, at best, a very short time in which to shop themselves around to other networks.

If all the traditional networks go belly-up, the US will be pretty hard-up for anything resembling the TV content that they currently produce, for at least a few years as the fallout settles and new players enter the game or rise from the sidelines.

That will mean a lot of angry Americans. And guess who they'll blame for their favourite TV shows vanishing forever? I'll give you a hint: It won't be the networks' short-sighted insistence on holding onto a woefully outdated business model.